The only one I have anymore is the 3-9x32. I have one on my ruger 10/22 tactical hunter and one on my Marlin 882 SS 22 mag. They are a good scope. Its awesomely clear. Then again its not real high magnification

mulie your spot on. the optical quality is where the cheaper scopes are lacking. there is only so far you can go with a cheap scope. some can't handle harder recoiling rifles very long before they suffer internal damage. the longer the distance you're going to shoot, the more you need to spend on higher quality optics.

mulie your spot on. the optical quality is where the cheaper scopes are lacking. there is only so far you can go with a cheap scope. some can't handle harder recoiling rifles very long before they suffer internal damage. the longer the distance you're going to shoot, the more you need to spend on higher quality optics.

Yes sir fully agree but hey what works for us may not for them right. But when im sittin on the side of a mountain after a 5 hr in the dark hike, in -15 degree weather with a 360 class bull blowin snot an pissin all over himself do i want a cheap scope on my rifle hell no.

Yes sir fully agree but hey what works for us may not for them right. But when im sittin on the side of a mountain after a 5 hr in the dark hike, in -15 degree weather with a 360 class bull blowin snot an pissin all over himself do i want a cheap scope on my rifle hell no.

In that situation the cheapest I'd go is Weaver, Burris, redfield, Nikon, and vortex.

I may have just had a bad one tho to pal?? It was very dull as far as clarity, compared it with a couple other brands an wa la it was very dull in low light, becouse of that im not a fan

Nikon's are like centerpoints to me. 3-9 and 4-12 is great. Beyond 12 or maybe 14 power they start losing that edge. That's why I have the scopes I do. My highest power Nikon i use is 4-12x50. Its on my TC contender 250.